What does it mean to be transgender?

[ilumairen]

Feeling something doesn't make it reality. If someone thinks, feels, believes or otherwise that they aren't in the right skin, then that's unfortunate. Making a word up to cover the mental/physical anguish is senseless.

 

I'm crying 'foul'. I'm the one who argued against labels that you insisted upon Karl. So, I played along, and helped you find the label that worked best in your mind for me - no matter that it could not be entirely accurate. Now you wish to say that others cannot choose their own labels? That seems rather hypocritical to me.

 

[liminal_luke]

But you support the use of force to get a job, rent property, or get married ?

You bet. People have a right not to be discriminated against in matters of employment, rental applications, and marriage regardless of color, creed, sexual orientation, gender, and so on. And if someone says otherwise they should be forced legally to comply.

 

Whether or not you accept me is up to you. But you can´t deny me the right to work I´m qualified for based solely on any of the above. You can´t run me out of town. You can´t tell me I´m not allowed to marry the man I love.

Edited December 20, 2015 by liminal_luke

[Karl]

I'm crying 'foul'. I'm the one who argued against labels that you insisted upon Karl. So, I played along, and helped you find the label that worked best in your mind for me - no matter that it could not be entirely accurate. Now you wish to say that others cannot choose their own labels? That seems rather hypocritical to me.

 

They can choose whatever label they like, I'm asking if it makes sense for them to do so ?

 

Neither have I any 'label' in mind for you. If you wish to have one that's your business.

[ilumairen]

They can choose whatever label they like, I'm asking if it makes sense for them to do so ?

 

What difference does it make if their experience and understanding make sense to you? It isn't your experience to define.

 

 

[Karl]

You bet. People have a right not to be discriminated against in matters of employment, rental applications, and marriage regardless of color, creed, sexual orientation, gender, and so on. And if someone says otherwise they should be forced legally to comply.Whether or not you accept me is up to you. But you can´t deny me the right to work I´m qualified for based solely on any of the above. You can´t run me out of town. You can´t tell me I´m not allowed to marry the man I love.

 

Isn't discrimination a right and a necessity ? The right to associate freely and peacefully, not to be forced to associate with those you don't ? Isnt that just as bad ? Doesn't it seem inconsistent to you that you should pick one set of things that you feel shouldn't have discrimination, but exclude a whole host of other things ?

 

I hope you don't mean me personally when you made that post 'you can't run me out of town' ? I assume you didn't and that it was simply the way it was written?

 

Running someone 'out of town' in the sense you mean it, would certainly be against the law. That's also an initiation of force-unless you were a bad 'un, or the town (streets and all) were private. I would certainly defend your right to remain in the town and to remain unmolested-that's if I was sheriff Karl. Anyone attempting to initiate violence in any respect would find themselves behind bars of worse. I deplore violence, but I won't hesitate to use it against those that seek to use force to gain values they did not earn and have no right to.

 

 

[liminal_luke]

Thanks Sheriff Karl. No, I wasn´t meaning you personally. I mean that nobody has a right to run anybody out of town.

 

Let me see if I understand you. Suppose you´re the owner of a McDonalds franchise...

 

Do you think you should be able to turn down applications from all people who are black, and hire only whites?

 

Do you think you should be able to turn down applications from women, and hire only men?

 

Do you think you should be able to turn down applications from transgender people?

 

I think it´s wrong to systematically exclude these people from possible employment, even if you (hypothetically) don´t personally like them. Do you disagree?

Edited December 20, 2015 by liminal_luke

[ralis]

Isn't discrimination a right and a necessity ? The right to associate freely and peacefully, not to be forced to associate with those you don't ? Isnt that just as bad ? Doesn't it seem inconsistent to you that you should pick one set of things that you feel shouldn't have discrimination, but exclude a whole host of other things ?

 

Discriminating against persons in the categories that liminal_luke has defined is inhumane. History is replete with the abuses of such deplorable acts. The question becomes, where does bigotry end? Usually it ends with violence against a minority group that has very little physical or legal defenses.

[Karl]

What difference does it make if their experience and understanding make sense to you? It isn't your experience to define.

 

It doesn't make sense to me, but I'm happy to call someone any name they wish for the sake of politeness. We certainly have not defined a third kind of gender, or a fluid gender. Come the day when a surgeon can transplant a brain into an entire female body, then and only then will they be female.

[ralis]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141293072

 

 

 

Source: Reuters

More colleges seek exemption from LGBT anti-bias rules, rights group says

Reuters
By Fiona Ortiz
8 hours ago

CHICAGO (Reuters) - A growing number of U.S. universities are seeking religious exemptions from civil rights laws barring discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) students, according to a report by LGBT advocacy group Human Rights Campaign.

The group called on the Department of Education to make the exemption process more public so that students could know they might suffer discrimination at schools they choose to attend.

Colleges controlled by religious groups are allowed to ask for exemption from Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which bans sex discrimination for programs that get federal funds, but more recently has been used to protect gay and transgender students from discrimination.

Human Rights Campaign said 43 schools sought the exemption in 2015, up from a single school in 2013. Of 56 requests for exemptions in total, 33 schools are now allowed to discriminate on the basis of gender identity and 23 schools on the basis of sexual orientation, the group said. It said the exemptions allow colleges to discriminate in areas such as admissions, sports programs, housing and financial aid.


Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/more-colleges-seek-exemption-lgbt-anti-bias-rules-153337357.html

[Karl]

Discriminating against persons in the categories that liminal_luke has defined is inhumane. History is replete with the abuses of such deplorable acts. The question becomes, where does bigotry end? Usually it ends with violence against a minority group that has very little physical or legal defenses.

 

No, it's just stupid, but stupidity isn't a crime or the prisons would be 99% of the land mass.

 

The violence against minority groups was the result of religion and government who made it a crime to be homosexual. It should never have been so. The violence the state and church perpetrated against homosexuals set the tone for society. It's only the religious zealouts and their politician friends that are like that, the rest of us treat people as we find them. Its best to avoid the religious zealouts I feel, than force them to give a homosexual a job.

 

There is, I admit, a strange kind of twisted justice in forcing a Christian fundamentalist/Muslim Wahabist to employ someone antithetical to their twisted ideology.

[Karl]

Thanks Sheriff Karl. No, I wasn´t meaning you personally. I mean that nobody has a right to run anybody out of town.Let me see if I understand you. Suppose you´re the owner of a McDonalds franchise...Do you think you should be able to turn down applications from all people who are black, and hire only whites?Do you think you should be able to turn down applications from women, and hire only men?Do you think you should be able to turn down applications from transgender people?I think it´s wrong to systematically exclude these people from possible employment, even if you (hypothetically) don´t personally like them. Do you disagree?

First off you are begging the question. What is called a loaded or leading question. Like 'when did you stop beating your wife'. Just so you know that your hypothetical question is in that form. If I say yes or no I'm guilty :-)

 

Now, accepting you probably didn't mean to do that in an attempt to win the argument you naughty chappy :-) I will attempt to open up the discussion.

 

First off: A business hires the best people it can at a price it is willing to pay for that labour. It doesn't arbitrarily discriminate.

 

Second: The government has instituted minimum wage laws which DO actively discriminate against minority groups, the low skilled and the young.

 

Third: The franchise will discriminate anyway regardless of the laws. It's only when some employee rentseeker-professional compensation claimer (yes they do exist be it for money, or to be activists) discovers a way to make a claim, that the discrimination is exposed. The business will choose to hire degree level white students, instead of uneducated blacks, if they cannot negotiate the price because of government fixing. Thus it excludes minorities from basic employment, relegating them to benefits and ghettoes.

 

So, yes, let them discriminate, but get rid of the vicious law that discriminates by fixed wage. It will mean more minorities will be employed because they can price their labour at a lower cost and so undercut the White, degree level students.

 

Businesses aren't stupid. Most don't discriminate randomly. If a homosexual looks like a better bet in terms of skill/performance than a heterosexual, then they would be crazy not to hire. In a case where there are far bigger issues such as less experience/poorer education (often going along with skin colour) then the potential employer might offer a lower wage and take a punt on the less experienced if he got on well at interview. That can only happen if the state isn't gumming up the works though.

Edited December 20, 2015 by Karl

[Karl]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141293072

 

Mystics vs Subjectivists. It's like Facists vs Communists. Same difference, just a disagreement over how to apply the principle.

[liminal_luke]

I guess you lost me Karl. It wasn´t a trick question. In the United States there are "protected classes" and it´s illegal to discriminate in employment against people on that basis. I think that´s a good thing and asked if you agreed. It´s not a trick.

 

You seemed to be saying in your earlier posts that you think it´s OK for people to discriminate. Maybe I should take you at your word, but I think that people who willfully discriminate are mean and hateful people. And despite what you´ve written, I don´t believe you´re a mean and hateful person. I still don´t think so actually, though perhaps someone whose taken on a certain ideology and is clinging to it rather ardently.

 

I was hoping you´d say that you wouldn´t discriminate against any of those peoples. That you believe it´s wrong to do so.

 

Perhaps you´re saying that the laws that are in place to protect people from discrimination work imperfectly. No doubt. You can argue that they are clumsy tools, and perhaps you have ideas that would work better. But I¨m talking about something more basic than that: whether people should be denied opportunities in life because of their gender, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, and so on. If you think the current civil rights laws are the wrong way to go about protecting these folk that´s one thing. You might be right. I´m not interested in debating that point. The only thing I want to know is this: do you think it´s alright to hurt people?

 

Because that´s what it comes right down to.

 

Liminal

Edited December 20, 2015 by liminal_luke

[Netero]

.

Edited August 18, 2016 by Netero

[thelerner]

 There is no 'right' for anyone to be accepted by anyone. 

 

At present there are laws forcing people to accept homosexuality. This is a violation of rights.

People should have the right not to be discriminated against.  If this seems like being 'forced' to some, then they'd better get out of the way because the wave of modernity and social justice is going wipe them away.   Sorry if its a burden but you'll  have to treat them as you would anyone else. 

 

But you support the use of force to get a job, rent property, or get married

It's like you are under the opinion that homosexuals can walk into a place and demand a job, automatically get an apartment or force you to marry them.  They can't.  Its all about creating a level playing field because for generations, they'd be black balled from all of the above.  

 

There are fundamentalists who've cried foul and pain over having to give equality to woman, other religions and people of color.  They're going to have to suck it up again and take on live and let live attitude.   Believe me, it'll do'em some good. 

Edited December 20, 2015 by thelerner

[Netero]

.

Edited August 18, 2016 by Netero

[ralis]

 

Therefore, if transsexual people derive happiness from things such as revolving their identity around their appearance, getting attention for standing out, being treated differently, feeling special, being turned on by themselfes, expressing their ideal of womanhood, and so on, this is just so according to their own understanding. Let the kids play.

 

It seems as if you are belittling them. "Let the kids play", certainly states how you feel.

[liminal_luke]

This leads us to an important question - is transsexuality wrong?

 

Let the kids play.

Oh my...

 

I think people who aren´t transgender ought not to speculate so much about the motivations or spiritual aptitude of those who are. Ought to perhaps have a little humility.

 

We bums often make very forceful statements, me included, putting forth our viewpoints with great assurance. Yet isn´t one sign of spiritual maturity the willingness to acknowledge how much we don´t know? The universe is unimaginably big, unfathomably mysterious.

 

DreamBliss asked what it means to be crossgender. That´s a very profound question, and one that nobody here has come close to answering.

Edited December 20, 2015 by liminal_luke

[Karl]

I guess you lost me Karl. It wasn´t a trick question. In the United States there are "protected classes" and it´s illegal to discriminate in employment against people on that basis. I think that´s a good thing and asked if you agreed. It´s not a trick.You seemed to be saying in your earlier posts that you think it´s OK for people to discriminate. Maybe I should take you at your word, but I think that people who willfully discriminate are mean and hateful people. And despite what you´ve written, I don´t believe you´re a mean and hateful person. I still don´t think so actually, though perhaps someone whose taken on a certain ideology and is clinging to it rather ardently.I was hoping you´d say that you wouldn´t discriminate against any of those peoples. That you believe it´s wrong to do so.Perhaps you´re saying that the laws that are in place to protect people from discrimination work imperfectly. No doubt. You can argue that they are clumsy tools, and perhaps you have ideas that would work better. But I¨m talking about something more basic than that: whether people should be denied opportunities in life because of their gender, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, and so on. If you think the current civil rights laws are the wrong way to go about protecting these folk that´s one thing. You might be right. I´m not interested in debating that point. The only thing I want to know is this: do you think it´s alright to hurt people?Because that´s what it comes right down to.Liminal

 

Everyone discriminates. People are denied all kinds of opportunities in life because of gender, age, sexual orientation etc, that's reality.

 

Haven't I made it abundantly clear that it is not acceptable to initiate force against people ?

 

Isnt it you that wishes to use force in order to get your way ? You justify it, but you don't see the wrong.

[Karl]

People should have the right not to be discriminated against. If this seems like being 'forced' to some, then they'd better get out of the way because the wave of modernity and social justice is going wipe them away. Sorry if its a burden but you'll have to treat them as you would anyone else.

 

 

It's like you are under the opinion that homosexuals can walk into a place and demand a job, automatically get an apartment or force you to marry them. They can't. Its all about creating a level playing field because for generations, they'd be black balled from all of the above.

 

There are fundamentalists who've cried foul and pain over having to give equality to woman, other religions and people of color. They're going to have to suck it up again and take on live and let live attitude. Believe me, it'll do'em some good.

You happily advocate the initiation of force ? There is no 'level playing field' you are living in a subjectivist fantasy in which you believe it's justified to put a gun to a persons head in order to force them to comply with that fantasy.

 

I do not understand how you can't see how wrong that is ? It sounds exactly the sort of things both the Stalinists and Nazi said. This is the new regime comrade-get used to it or face the firing squad. What happens if there is a backlash ?what if a group gets in power that wants to exterminate minorities, who see that as their subjective fantasy as justified by having a milder sort of violence imposed on them ? Are you so keen to 'suck it up' ?

 

Think it through. Violence gets us nowhere. It's only place is in self defence and even then no value is obtained by the defender.

 

He who by Tao purposes to help the ruler of men will oppose all conquest by force of arms. For such things are wont to rebound.

 

Byrn: “Those who lead people by following the Tao do not use weapons to enforce their will. Using force always leads to unseen troubles.” Mabry: “A leader who is advised to rely on the Tao Does not enforce his will upon the world by military means. For such things are likely to rebound.”

 

This verse applies to both nations and individuals. Military action should be avoided as much as possible–and practical–because violence always causes a negative rebound, as will be explained in the second verse.

 

 

"""Actually, government should avoid any type of coercion, for those who bring pressure on others and force them to go against their principles or will, in time will find the same thing happening to them. Those who use reason and benevolence will find the same virtues being directed at them"""".

 

This also applies to individuals: kindness and reason bolstered by good example are the only way we should affect others–if possible. (This has to be qualified because just as there are incorrigible governments there are also incorrigible people who cannot be dealt with as rational.)

Edited December 20, 2015 by Karl

[Karl]

This leads us to an important question - is transsexuality wrong?

First off, what is the highest interest of a human being? According to Aristotle, happiness. Every sentient being naturally seeks this - a lion is not wrong in killing a gazelle; it seeks happiness according to it's own instinctual understanding.

From the perspective of an esoteric practicioner, the highest happiness lies in mastering the forces of the microcosm, and should he be a magician, the macrocosmos as well - these achievements will bring one closer to the Dao, which is the source of happiness. In order to do so, one need to engage in discipline of body, mind, emotion and energy.

However, let us suppose that a man has never tasted the bliss of heaven - he is quite content on the earth. Now, someone comes along and gives him a taste of a heavenly fruit; and suddenly, the man is no longer content with the earth. However, he is unable to reach heaven, leaving him on a middle ground of dissatisfaction. This is a terrible state for a man to be in.

Therefore, if transsexual people derive happiness from things such as revolving their identity around their appearance, getting attention for standing out, being treated differently, feeling special, being turned on by themselfes, expressing their ideal of womanhood, and so on, this is just so according to their own understanding. Let the kids play.

 

Transvestism, homosexuality etc are all facts. As long as people achieve value without deception (including self deception) then they will be happy regardless of sexual proclivity.

 

I'm not sure that all those who opt for body modification realise that they have not solved the issue of happiness. There are billions of people walking around today that are totally comfortable with their gender who aren't happy.

[redcairo]

But Karl, you eventually devolved to the whole narrative of what-if-someone-transsexual-lied-about-it and then explored that and related points -- and while philosophically related, it reveals some degree of fear underneath your reasoning I think.

 

What if my breasts are implants and I don't tell you? What if I once did {insert whatever you find most sexually horrifying, with multiple men of whatever kind you dislike most} and didn't tell you? How does TS or any other category of people become any 'more' subject to potential deceit than any other person in the world?

 

In my esoteric world, I am constantly being told and shown that "there is no difference" between the physical and the psychological and the spiritual. That it's all energy and all reflective. It's odd my brain has such a hard time wrapping that up, because intellectually I totally believe that our people are lost with our weird ideas on psychology, as if it's all something that just hovers around our heads like a glowing orb or something -- when in fact everything in science only more-indicates our bodies ARE our psychologies and everything -- from lead to glandular outputs -- underlies behavior.

 

If that is the case, though, then I have to see non-standard sexuality as reflective of a person's actual physical body -- as well as their spirit -- not just something "in the middle" in the psychology. In which case it doesn't matter whether that particular person happens to have been born all male chromosomes and not one of the gender variants -- if their actual physical body did not have something going on supporting this, they probably would have no impetus toward it {insert whatever IT is, here}.

 

In which case how could there be judgment on the devolution of culture or whatever, that people are more free to act on what they feel now, than they were a century ago?

 

I might add that I think profound lifetime malnourishment due to our pseudo-food supply is probably responsible for a great deal of twisted behavior across the spectrum and it's possible some of that includes sexuality-stuff. Still, it makes it physical at base.

[liminal_luke]

Great post Redcairo. Your take on the essential oneness of physical/psychological/spiritual viewpoints really puts transgerderism -- and a good deal more -- in a useful context.

 

I spent much of yesterday thinking about and writing in this thread, and today it´s time to move onto other things. Hopefully I´ll have the fortitude to resist responding to further posts. (I guess you´ll all see, huh?)

 

I enjoy my time here but there comes a point when further discussion yields diminishing returns, and I think I´ve reached it.

 

If there are people reading this thread who are dealing personally with these kind of issues around gender, please take heart. Yes, there is a lot of ignorance out there, but I believe the tide is turning. Love will eventually triumph. It has to.

 

Liminal

Edited December 20, 2015 by liminal_luke

[Karl]

But Karl, you eventually devolved to the whole narrative of what-if-someone-transsexual-lied-about-it and then explored that and related points -- and while philosophically related, it reveals some degree of fear underneath your reasoning I think.

 

What if my breasts are implants and I don't tell you? What if I once did {insert whatever you find most sexually horrifying, with multiple men of whatever kind you dislike most} and didn't tell you? How does TS or any other category of people become any 'more' subject to potential deceit than any other person in the world?

 

In my esoteric world, I am constantly being told and shown that "there is no difference" between the physical and the psychological and the spiritual. That it's all energy and all reflective. It's odd my brain has such a hard time wrapping that up, because intellectually I totally believe that our people are lost with our weird ideas on psychology, as if it's all something that just hovers around our heads like a glowing orb or something -- when in fact everything in science only more-indicates our bodies ARE our psychologies and everything -- from lead to glandular outputs -- underlies behavior.

 

If that is the case, though, then I have to see non-standard sexuality as reflective of a person's actual physical body -- as well as their spirit -- not just something "in the middle" in the psychology. In which case it doesn't matter whether that particular person happens to have been born all male chromosomes and not one of the gender variants -- if their actual physical body did not have something going on supporting this, they probably would have no impetus toward it {insert whatever IT is, here}.

 

In which case how could there be judgment on the devolution of culture or whatever, that people are more free to act on what they feel now, than they were a century ago?

 

I might add that I think profound lifetime malnourishment due to our pseudo-food supply is probably responsible for a great deal of twisted behavior across the spectrum and it's possible some of that includes sexuality-stuff. Still, it makes it physical at base.

 

You should read this. It agrees with what I have posted-what the author hasn't realised is why there are issues. I covered it. Trying to extract unearned values brings misery.

 

http://www.sexchangeregret.com/research

 

[thelerner]

You happily advocate the initiation of force ? There is no 'level playing field' you are living in a subjectivist fantasy in which you believe it's justified to put a gun to a persons head in order to force them to comply with that fantasy.

When you are losing an argument your writing becomes even more exaggerated and twisted.  If the only way to rationalize your beliefs is to see the other side putting guns to peoples head then you might want to adjust your beliefs a little closer to reality.  Laws against discrimination are not a magic wand, but they've worked for woman and minorities.  

 

Perhaps if you were in a minority that faced discrimination or straight out ban on where you could work, live or marry you'd gain a little more sympathy.   Maybe even hope for a law that would help you and yours.